Cargando…

Re-irradiation of recurrent head and neck carcinomas: comparison of robust intensity modulated proton therapy treatment plans with helical tomotherapy

BACKGROUND: To test the hypothesis that the therapeutic ratio of intensity-modulated photon therapy using helical tomotherapy (HT) for retreatment of head and neck carcinomas can be improved by robust intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). METHODS: Comparative dose planning with robust IMPT was...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stuschke, Martin, Kaiser, Andreas, Abu-Jawad, Jehad, Pöttgen, Christoph, Levegrün, Sabine, Farr, Jonathan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3648492/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23601204
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-8-93
_version_ 1782268855128686592
author Stuschke, Martin
Kaiser, Andreas
Abu-Jawad, Jehad
Pöttgen, Christoph
Levegrün, Sabine
Farr, Jonathan
author_facet Stuschke, Martin
Kaiser, Andreas
Abu-Jawad, Jehad
Pöttgen, Christoph
Levegrün, Sabine
Farr, Jonathan
author_sort Stuschke, Martin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To test the hypothesis that the therapeutic ratio of intensity-modulated photon therapy using helical tomotherapy (HT) for retreatment of head and neck carcinomas can be improved by robust intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). METHODS: Comparative dose planning with robust IMPT was performed for 7 patients retreated with HT. RESULTS: On average, HT yielded dose gradients steeper in a distance ≤ 7.5 mm outside the target (p<0.0001, F-test) and more conformal high dose regions down to the 50% isodose than IMPT. Both methods proved comparably robust against set-up errors of up to 2 mm, and normal tissue exposure was satisfactory. The mean body dose was smaller with IMPT. CONCLUSIONS: IMPT was found not to be uniformly superior to HT and the steeper average dose fall-off around the target volume is an argument pro HT under the methodological implementations used. However, looking at single organs at risk, the normal tissue sparing of IMPT can surpass tomotherapy for an individual patient. Therefore, comparative dose planning is recommended, if both methods are available.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3648492
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-36484922013-05-09 Re-irradiation of recurrent head and neck carcinomas: comparison of robust intensity modulated proton therapy treatment plans with helical tomotherapy Stuschke, Martin Kaiser, Andreas Abu-Jawad, Jehad Pöttgen, Christoph Levegrün, Sabine Farr, Jonathan Radiat Oncol Research BACKGROUND: To test the hypothesis that the therapeutic ratio of intensity-modulated photon therapy using helical tomotherapy (HT) for retreatment of head and neck carcinomas can be improved by robust intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). METHODS: Comparative dose planning with robust IMPT was performed for 7 patients retreated with HT. RESULTS: On average, HT yielded dose gradients steeper in a distance ≤ 7.5 mm outside the target (p<0.0001, F-test) and more conformal high dose regions down to the 50% isodose than IMPT. Both methods proved comparably robust against set-up errors of up to 2 mm, and normal tissue exposure was satisfactory. The mean body dose was smaller with IMPT. CONCLUSIONS: IMPT was found not to be uniformly superior to HT and the steeper average dose fall-off around the target volume is an argument pro HT under the methodological implementations used. However, looking at single organs at risk, the normal tissue sparing of IMPT can surpass tomotherapy for an individual patient. Therefore, comparative dose planning is recommended, if both methods are available. BioMed Central 2013-04-20 /pmc/articles/PMC3648492/ /pubmed/23601204 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-8-93 Text en Copyright © 2013 Stuschke et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Stuschke, Martin
Kaiser, Andreas
Abu-Jawad, Jehad
Pöttgen, Christoph
Levegrün, Sabine
Farr, Jonathan
Re-irradiation of recurrent head and neck carcinomas: comparison of robust intensity modulated proton therapy treatment plans with helical tomotherapy
title Re-irradiation of recurrent head and neck carcinomas: comparison of robust intensity modulated proton therapy treatment plans with helical tomotherapy
title_full Re-irradiation of recurrent head and neck carcinomas: comparison of robust intensity modulated proton therapy treatment plans with helical tomotherapy
title_fullStr Re-irradiation of recurrent head and neck carcinomas: comparison of robust intensity modulated proton therapy treatment plans with helical tomotherapy
title_full_unstemmed Re-irradiation of recurrent head and neck carcinomas: comparison of robust intensity modulated proton therapy treatment plans with helical tomotherapy
title_short Re-irradiation of recurrent head and neck carcinomas: comparison of robust intensity modulated proton therapy treatment plans with helical tomotherapy
title_sort re-irradiation of recurrent head and neck carcinomas: comparison of robust intensity modulated proton therapy treatment plans with helical tomotherapy
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3648492/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23601204
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-8-93
work_keys_str_mv AT stuschkemartin reirradiationofrecurrentheadandneckcarcinomascomparisonofrobustintensitymodulatedprotontherapytreatmentplanswithhelicaltomotherapy
AT kaiserandreas reirradiationofrecurrentheadandneckcarcinomascomparisonofrobustintensitymodulatedprotontherapytreatmentplanswithhelicaltomotherapy
AT abujawadjehad reirradiationofrecurrentheadandneckcarcinomascomparisonofrobustintensitymodulatedprotontherapytreatmentplanswithhelicaltomotherapy
AT pottgenchristoph reirradiationofrecurrentheadandneckcarcinomascomparisonofrobustintensitymodulatedprotontherapytreatmentplanswithhelicaltomotherapy
AT levegrunsabine reirradiationofrecurrentheadandneckcarcinomascomparisonofrobustintensitymodulatedprotontherapytreatmentplanswithhelicaltomotherapy
AT farrjonathan reirradiationofrecurrentheadandneckcarcinomascomparisonofrobustintensitymodulatedprotontherapytreatmentplanswithhelicaltomotherapy